Suggestions, wishlist and ideas for Panzer Corps 2 gameplay

[kondi754]

I think this has already been factored into multiple attacks by the use of Mass attack, which I hope they keep and maintain as part of the game.

Look at...
Schwerpunkt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg#Schwerpunkt

The Germans referred to a Schwerpunkt (focal point) and to a Schwerpunktprinzip (concentration principle) in the planning of operations, known as Schwerpunktbildung. The Schwerpunkt was the centre of gravity, point of main effort, where a decisive result was to be achieved. Military force was concentrated at the Schwerpunkt, regardless of the sacrifices it made necessary elsewhere. By local success at the Schwerpunkt, a small force could achieve a breakthrough and gain advantages by fighting in the enemy rear. Guderian summarised this as "Klotzen, nicht kleckern!" ("Kick, don't spatter them!").[59][60]

To break through, armoured forces would attack an opposing defensive line frontally, supported by motorised infantry, artillery fire and aerial bombardment, to create a breach. Tanks and other motorised units could break out of the fortified zone without the encumbrance of slow-moving infantry moving on foot. Air forces tried to gain air superiority by attacking opposing aircraft on the ground, bombing airfields and communications and seeking tactically advantageous positions from which to destroy them in the air. Schwerpunktbildung enabled the attacker to win numerical superiority at the point of main effort, which in turn gave the attacker tactical and operational superiority, even though the attacker may be numerically and strategically inferior in general.[61]

Schwerpunktbildung refers to planning on an operational scale. Panzer Corps is a tactical level game, where flanking is more important.
You are not able to cut off greater enemy forces from his back in the PzC, so breaking through in the operational scale and acting on the enemy's rear will give you nothing.

[Akkula]

Panzer Corps a tactical game?. Depending of the scale of the scenario that could change, but overall, I think is quite a strategical game.
CoH is a tactical game.

[kondi754]

Panzer Corps a tactical game?. Depending of the scale of the scenario that could change, but overall, I think is quite a strategical game.
CoH is a tactical game.

Don't you think that "strategy" is a concept far more broad than what the PzC proposes?
Where is logistics, military intelligence, resources in PzC ??? I will not mention about armaments production, political objectives, etc.
In my opinion, the tactical level is nearest.

[fdbetancor]

Lots of great comments in this forum; apologies if I repeat some of them simply because they are so good or because I haven't been able to read to the end of every (very long) thread.

The interesting thing about Panzer Korps is its simplicity; you don't need to have gone to the Army War College to have an enjoyable wargaming experience (unlike Hearts of Iron or Gary Grigsby's War in the East). That being said, there are some things that might be improved without adding too much more complexity.

1. "Hardcore": add a more realistic level for those gamers who enjoy the challenge of a more operational, rather than a tactical, experience;
2. Logistics: This was a critical factor in every campaign of the Second World War, but especially in the Eastern Front and in North Africa. The prestige system doesn't do a good job of reflecting the difficulties of operating far from base and in degraded or underdeveloped areas. Being able to immediately and fully resupply my panzers units far to the east of Tobruk or during the approach to Moscow makes no sense. There is no reason to change the resupply system itself, but making each resupply load dependent on terrain, weather, hex distance from supply points and level of infrastructure on the map would make for an interesting "hardcore" variant. Those who didn't want this level of detail could keep the simplified supply system. A logistics system might make it interesting for the Soviet player to buy partisans or use cavalry for deep penetration raids in the early 1941 campaign portion of Soviet Corps;
3. Reinforcement: Another modification for the "hardcore" variant. I don't think I should ever be able to fully restore a unit to full health in a single turn. Probably a 2- or 3-strength point increment per turn, when not actively engaged, is the most a unit should receive. That means the combat system might need to be tweaked some to avoid the instant death scenario for units that have fallen to 50% of full strength.
4. Scale It's a bit of a pet peeve, but could we keep the maps within a reasonable scale? It is annoying to have my 3- or 4- division, 30 unit corps move from a 5 km per hex map in Sedan to a 10 km per hex map in Barbarossa to a 0.5 km per hex map in Stalingrad. I know this is about game play rather than historical accuracy, but a bit more consistency would be nice.
5. Add actionability to the map and give the engineers a bigger role: All bridges should be able to be destroyed by combat engineers! Bridging units could then be used to "repair" these to improve logistics. Railways should be able to be sabotaged to disrupt logistics. Engineers could also deploy mines, or build hardpoints, which could be purchased in scenario with prestige, which would make for nice defensive game play in the 1944-1945 scenarios. Strategic bombing could also damage/destroy bridges and infrastructure to reduce supply in the hardcore variant.
6. Improve recon units: Make recon aircraft a purchasable unit. Give recon ground units a "retreat" option that allows them to move back a hex at half damage on some occasions. Otherwise, these units die like flies and I often play entire campaigns without them without too much detriment. Perhaps even reduce the spotting range for certain units, like heavy tanks, to increase the value of the recon units. I also like the suggestion of not giving enemy unit strength immediately - perhaps make it automatic for recon units and certain heroes, but for non-recon forces, only when they are next to the enemy.
7. Campaign selection: This would require many more scenarios to be developed, but it would be nice if the player could have alternatives to pick at certain points of campaigns. For example, in the 1940 Fall Gelb campaign, the player could pick assignment to Army Group A or B during the initial phase and would follow a different set of battles until the end of May 1940, when they would pick another assignment for Fall Rot. Similarly for Barbarossa, an element of non-linearity would add significant replay value.
8. Make non-core units more valuable: The cannon fodder approach to non-core units doesn't make much sense. Although players will always seek to prioritize their core units, there should be victory/prestige consequences for an egregious waste of non-core resources. E.g. lose more than 50% of non-core forces and a strategic victory becomes impossible, or still win a strategic victory but with 10% - 20% less prestige.
9. Historical naming/OOB database: Many players - including myself - like to recreate historical units as accurately as possible (without sacrificing game play!) It would be nice if the game provided a historical naming system and relatively accurate order of battle for the scenarios, i.e. when I purchase a new unit or look at my auxiliary units, there is no more "Wehrmacht Infantry" or "1st Artillery", I'd be buying the schwere-Panzer-Abteilung 508. This would be a pretty simple text file attached to each scenario for the auxiliaries, or to the campaign for the core units; I can't imagine it being too complex. The name editing function would still exist for those who didn't want a particular historical unit for whatever reason.
10. Minors Mods It would be nice to have some campaigns using minors. A relatively long Spanish Civil War campaign would be nice; it could be a standalone module where players pick the Fascist or Republican side and it could also link to an "Italian Campaign" that starts in 1936 in Ethiopia, then goes to Spain, then to French Savoy, Greece, North Africa. Ahistorical - yes; but could be an "advanced" unlockable/purchasable campaign for those players who have already won the German/Allied/Soviet ones. It would make for an interesting dynamic if the player had their German units as non-purchasable cores only and having to husband them like gold through the campaign...!
11. Get rid of the enemy equipped core units. Yes, it is true that both sides, especially the Germans, used captured enemy equipment, but please make these scenario-specific auxiliaries that cannot be reinforced. It is somewhat gamey for my Russian Corps to pick up a Tiger tank battalion and then be able to use it, resupply it and re-equip it at will from 1942 through the end of the war. The Germans were able to do this more freely in the early war, when they were still capturing tons of enemy equipment, but it was less frequent when they moved to the strategic defensive after 1943.
12. Alternate campaign mode. It would be interesting to be able to select a mode of play with no core units whatsoever. As an operational commander, you would start each scenario with an order of battle that is 100% scenario dependent. You could still carry prestige from scenario to scenario in a campaign, allowing you to purchase elite units and reinforcements for that mission, but not carry units around. It would make for an interesting challenge for a player requiring much more flexibility and planning, especially in the later game when an element of imbalance can creep in (a corps full of over strengthened Tigers, Panthers and Elefants tends to have a much easier time of it than the Wehrmacht historically did.)

[JaM2013]

regarding reinforcement - im playing Panzer Corps with reinforcements not linked with experience,but price for reinforcement increased. One of nice side effects of this is, that AI forces that are left alone for some time, will overstrength over time, so when you finally meet them, they are strength 15 or similar, which makes conquering the last flags a lot more challenging...


And one suggestion - i think there should be bigger difference between tactical and strategic bombers. maybe even redefine the classes and change it for Combat Air Support planes and Bombers. CAS planes should be more effective against armored targets where bombers should be better against soft targets.. supression effects strategic bombers have in PC should be used by both classes as both were actually used to cut enemy forces from supply, or suppress them

[Kolaris]

I think for "facing" a simple idea would be to tweak the Mass Attack values. If the supporting unit is adjacent to the attacking unit, the current -1. If it's to the flank of the enemy unit, -2. If it's directly to the rear of the attack, -3.

[verstaubtgesicht]

[61]
You are not able to cut off greater enemy forces from his back in the PzC, so breaking through in the operational scale and acting on the enemy's rear will give you nothing.

My point, exactly. I also like "If the supporting unit is adjacent to the attacking unit, the current -1. If it's to the flank of the enemy unit, -2. If it's directly to the rear of the attack, -3.", and other possible ideas. As I mentioned, supply cut off will also help, but not in a 1 turn "schwerpunkt" lighting fast operation. All in all, the key issue is that the mastery of creating a "schwerpunkt", breaching the front line and attacking a dug in, front facing, but with a weak rear underbelly, will "give you nothing". And this was a big reason why blitzkrieg worked, as explained eloquently above.

[Retributar]

These game 'suggestions/wishlist',...'is/are' not mean't or intended for the main game itself!. To reiterate my previous post's, these suggestions are only for a 'what-if', or alternative game package to explore other possibilities that could very well have taken place.

So!, now...another suggestion!:

http://histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/eco/raw/oil/w2ero-ger.html

Operation Felix

There was an "Alternative War Plan" to Barbarossa to the extent that "Oil" was now the Main Objective!. This was a southern strategy championed by Admiral Raeder and others. That was to force Spain into the Axis and then seize Gibraltar--"Operation Felix". With Gibraltar in their hands, the Mediterranean would be essentially an Axis lake. Most of North Africa was already in Axis hands. The Libyan Italian colony, along with Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco which were controlled by Vichy France, were all intent on collaborating with the Germans. If this situation developed, the British would then be forced to withdraw or surrender Malta. The British force in 1940 was very small and poorly armed. Only Italian incompetence and Hitler's failure to exercise realizable opportunities enabled the British to hang on. Then once the Mediterranean was in Axis hands, the Germans could proceed to drive on British-held Suez from Italian Libya. From there, …there would be nothing standing between the Germans and the oil resources of the Middle East of both in Iraq and Iran. Also, there was considerable pro-German feeling (Because of British Rule) not only in Egypt, but also in Iraq and Iran as well. Given the relatively small British force in Egypt, this could have been accomplished with a modest force. It would have provided the Germans all the oil that they needed. Now!, …with the Mediterranean in their hands, a safe route to Italy and the Reich would have been realized.

Hitler rejected the whole idea out of hand. His focus was firmly set on the East and he wanted no distractions or diversion of forces. He clearly spelled out that Germany's destiny for the needed Lebensraum lay in the East. Now was his opportunity to seize it. And, also…thanks to Stalin for supplying oil by railcar to Germany to stockpile fuel reserves for his campaign in Norway and later, the low countries,…this time there was no longer a French Army in the West to divert scarce resources away from his effort to attack Russia.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Information:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Felix

Invasion plans of Nazi Germany and probable routes of British invasion.[5][6]

Background
Following the Fall of France in June 1940, Hermann Göring advised Adolf Hitler to occupy Spain and North Africa rather than invade the UK. As early as June 1940, before the armistice with France had been signed, General Heinz Guderian also argued for seizing Britain's strategically important naval base of Gibraltar. Guderian even urged Hitler to postpone the armistice so that he could rush on through Spain with two Panzer divisions, take Gibraltar, and then invade French North Africa. General Alfred Jodl, Chief of Staff of Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKW) operations, presented Hitler with a formal plan to cut off Britain from its eastern empire by invading Spain, Gibraltar, North Africa, and the Suez Canal instead of invading the British Isles.

Operation planning
Despite these problems, German military leaders proceeded to prepare for a large-scale operation against Gibraltar. Codenamed Operation Felix, the plan called for two German army corps to enter Spain across the Pyrenees. One corps, under General Ludwig Kübler, was to cross Spain and assault Gibraltar, while the other, commanded by General Rudolf Schmidt, was to secure its flanks. Air support would need one fighter and two dive-bomber wings[clarification needed]. Overall command of Felix was to be assigned to Field Marshal Walther von Reichenau. The plan also made provisions for occupying Spanish possessions in North Africa: Spanish Morocco, Río de Oro, and the Canary Islands, whose ports could then be used as bases for German U-boats.[4]

Proposed German order of battle
Expeditionary Corps (forming the covering force); General Rudolf Schmidt
16th Motorized Infantry Division (to concentrate at Valladolid)
16th Panzer Division (Cáceres)
SS Division Totenkopf (Seville)

49 Gebirgsarmeekorps or Army Mountain Corps (forming the assault force); General Ludwig Kübler
Grossdeutschland Infantry Regiment
98th Regiment of the 1st Mountain Division
26 medium and heavy artillery battalions
3 observation battalions
3 engineer battalions, which would use up to 150 "Goliath" remotely controlled mine clearing vehicles
2 Nebelwerfer battalions
Regiment Brandenburg (detachment of 150)
[7]

Felix-Heinrich
On Hitler's insistence, the OKW developed a revised plan for the capture of Gibraltar, which might be implemented once the German invasion of the Soviet Union had been completed. Codenamed Felix-Heinrich, the plan was submitted to General Franz Halder on 10 March 1941. It proposed that as soon as the invading forces in the Soviet Union reached a line between Kiev and Smolensk, hopefully by 15 July, units could then be withdrawn to prepare for the Gibraltar operation, which it was thought could begin on 15 October. Felix-Heinrich would broadly follow the original plan, with the same forces, but with new supporting units.

[RandomAttack]

I would like to see some kind of change regarding replacements. On the one hand there are a lot of folks asking for more "realistic" supply rules, yet everyone just accepts the "Elite Replacement" concept. As an example, in 1944-45, just WHERE are the Germans getting ELITE replacements from?? Ditto for the Soviets-- many of their units that actually survived had 300% casualties over a 2-3 year period. This whole concept, together with overstrength, has just way too much impact. It also impacts scenario design, because it seems the developers always assume (in later years) the player has a big stack of overstrength units, soooo the enemy is ALSO given a megaswarm of overstrength units.

Since we have so many leaders/heroes, perhaps THEY should play the major role in increasing combat power of a unit instead of experience. If my prized 5-star Engineer unit gets hammered down to 1-strength, it *should* hurt my experience to bring it up to strength-- not just hand-wave it off because I have a bunch of prestige saved and can afford elite replacements. But if it has a good leader, it can mitigate the loss of experience to some degree...

IMO, focusing on whether a Tiger should have +/- 2 points of beans or bullets, and how it can get them, is insignificant if it can always remain a 5-star Tank o' Death regardless of how many casualties it has taken over the war. When everyone is elite, no one is elite.

[Retributar]

[quote="RandomAttack"] I would like to see some kind of change regarding replacements.

~~~~~~I'm in Favour of these suggestion's, Therefore... I '2nd' the motion!.~~~~~~

[TomJoh66]

Something I really enjoyed in PG and really miss in PC is the ability to name core units in a campaign. I imagine it was dropped to avoid a bunch of inappropriate Nazi names, but it would be nice to be able to assemble a more-or-less historic order of battle that has some more realistic sense of unit identity than "21st PanzerIVF". The PG core units based on the German 6th Panzer and US 4th Armored divisions was a really neat feature.

I don't agree with the comment that AA units are useless -- I find them very useful to protect massed artillery batteries, most of which are towed as well, and groups of units. They can also finish off enemy aircraft heavily damaged by friendly air cover. They discourage the AI from attacking, which frees up fighters to escort bombers and provide cover to advanced units.

I like fdbetancour's comment on logistics -- making resupply more dependent on situation would be cool. No need to involve the player -- the program would do the calculations, but the player would have to be aware and plan accordingly. Excellent idea. I also agree with his(?) comment on use of captured units. It happened occasionally, sure, but in scenarios like the 1942 Russian campaign there is a profligate awarding of captured units such that the core ends up with a dozen T34 and KV units, which is ridiculous. And I like the comment about being able to lay minefields, especially in the deployment phase.

Thanks, looking forward to it. You guys have done a great job on PanzerCorps, the various campaigns are really great.

[hs1611]

Something I really enjoyed in PG and really miss in PC is the ability to name core units in a campaign. I imagine it was dropped to avoid a bunch of inappropriate Nazi names, but it would be nice to be able to assemble a more-or-less historic order of battle that has some more realistic sense of unit identity than "21st PanzerIVF". The PG core units based on the German 6th Panzer and US 4th Armored divisions was a really neat feature.

You can do it on Panzer Corps:

1 - Select the unit you wish to rename.
2 - Click "ALT" + "N".
3 - Input new name.
4 - Click "ENTER".

Voilá...

[uncajerf]

Proponents of 3D, name ONE game which turned with 3D for better, has better AI, has lower hardware requirements etc.?

Ever heard of this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wlS-LXsO1Y

[kondi754]

Proponents of 3D, name ONE game which turned with 3D for better, has better AI, has lower hardware requirements etc.?

Ever heard of this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wlS-LXsO1Y

I am moved, this movie reminds me of my youth

[Rag116]

I probably posted this in the wrong spot first time,
like to see a fuel limit on carrier / cargo planes, as of now they can fly unrestricted in bad weather and or holed up in a corner of a map waiting for bad weather to go for a drop somewhere is a bit much.

[jman0war]

Fade in and Fade out Weather changes.

It's a bit glaring when the weather changes abruptly between turns.
Why not make a calculation that when Player has 70% of units moved, start light snow or rain.
Next turn and it's a snow/mud covered ground.

[jman0war]

Other graphical suggestions:

-Swap in different meshes for towns that have taken damage. When i pummel a town with 2 Tac Bombers and 2 Heavy Artillery in the same turn, i expect to see some rubble.
-Track marks and other evidence of the scars of war in the terrain. When i sweep across across the Low Countries, i expect to see a trail of churned up terrain in my wake.
-Swap in meshes (or sprites) of entrenchment around towns. There should be some visual evidence of how well fortified that enemy troop is. I shouldn't have to go looking for a tiny "ENT" statistic.

[goose_2]

Other graphical suggestions:

-Swap in different meshes for towns that have taken damage. When i pummel a town with 2 Tac Bombers and 2 Heavy Artillery in the same turn, i expect to see some rubble.
-Track marks and other evidence of the scars of war in the terrain. When i sweep across across the Low Countries, i expect to see a trail of churned up terrain in my wake.
-Swap in meshes (or sprites) of entrenchment around towns. There should be some visual evidence of how well fortified that enemy troop is. I shouldn't have to go looking for a tiny "ENT" statistic.

I like this +1

[jman0war]

In wet weather, after a particularly successful artillery barrage, when in the fully zoomed-in view, get some water and mud splash on the 'camera'.

Remember the praise that 'Saving Private Ryan' got for it's camera work?
Use those same techniques.
De-saturate, subtle shaky camera at moments, and splice out a frame from time to time.

[jman0war]

Sounds

You should have the normal sounds for all units, but then you should have a 'detailed sound' for each.
Detailed sounds are the same but are louder, fuller and also have creaks, and maybe sounds of voices and other texture.
As you zoom-in, overlay the detailed sounds.

Closer your get the higher percent of 'detailed sounds' play.

Basically when you're zoomed-in you are closer to the action, get the camera shakes, water and mud splat, and the sounds are 'more'.